Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[FatAndFaithless]

And yet another argument from ignorance fallacy.

Nothing in your conjecture requires an intelligent designer.

All can be explained via physics, chemistry and biology.

quite versed in all three of those sciences

This oughta be good.

[sswhateverlove]

How about that there is no possibility there is intelligence to the design of reality?

Or that there is no possibility there is an intelligent influence interacting with our reality?

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Strawman.

Take this as friendly advice; engage in conversations with people else face the consequences.

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand your point? I thought you were asking about the dogmas I was referring to...

[Bibliofagus]

Fuck me. Now god apparently designed computers.

[Simon Moon]

How about that there is no possibility there is intelligence to the design of reality?

Or that there is no possibility there is an intelligent influence interacting with our reality?

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

This is getting truly sad.

So far several people, me twice, have tried to explain to you that the vast majority of atheists do not claim, with 100% cetainty, that there is no intelligent designer.

Atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

Maybe your first post here should have been to have atheists (you know, the people you are talking to?), to explain our position to you.

---

Strawman.

Take this as friendly advice; engage in conversations with people else face the consequences.

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand your point? I thought you were asking about the dogmas I was referring to...

No, you are creating strawmen.

None of us here have any of the dogmas you claim we do. Nor do the vast majority of atheists.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Strawman.

Take this as friendly advice; engage in conversations with people else face the consequences.

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand your point? I thought you were asking about the dogmas I was referring to...

You're telling us what we think/believe and then arguing against them.

That's the definition of a Strawman. Desist.

[Esquilax]

How about that there is no possibility there is intelligence to the design of reality?

Or that there is no possibility there is an intelligent influence interacting with our reality?

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Given that you believe that you're wrong about everything you say, I guess we don't have to take you seriously anymore.

Oh, what's that? Telling other people what they believe instead of just asking them is an aggressive and dishonest debate tactic?

Yes. Yes it is.

[Cyberman]

I'm going to make a guess - a prophecy, if you will; I haven't done one of those for a while - that the OP has no problem with any aspect of science that doesn't conflict with his pet magic book. Any that does has got to be wrong by definition and never mind how; it just is.

[Exian]

Yeah, again, please go to the introduction section and introduce yourself. Tell us about yourself. Let us know you are genuinely interested in intelligent conversation. You're less likely to be dismissed immediately if we know you're making an honest effort.

[JesusHChrist]

How about that there is no possibility there is intelligence to the design of reality?

Or that there is no possibility there is an intelligent influence interacting with our reality?

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Very few of us would say there is no such possibility. There is no evidence to think there is any such intelligent thingy out there. Until there is, bleh.

Atheists are more from Missiouri. Show me your claims are true. The fact theists are completely unable to do so is hardly our fault.

[sswhateverlove]

The absolute nature of the claims made by scientific fundamentalists seem to depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.

Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure? When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust? There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims. As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.

How are you so confident?

Do you have the slightest idea of what science is? Let me wiki that for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Stop making an embarassment of yourself, please.

Why do you think I should be "embarassed"? Because I've been researching information and I'm asking for others opinions on it? Oh yes, I'm so ashamed!

---

How about that there is no possibility there is intelligence to the design of reality?

Or that there is no possibility there is an intelligent influence interacting with our reality?

Seems pretty dogmatic to me.

Very few of us would say there is no such possibility. There is no evidence to think there is any such intelligent thingy out there. Until there is, bleh.

Atheists are more from Missiouri. Show me your claims are true. The fact theists are completely unable to do so is hardly our fault.

What about the 96% of reality that is said to be "dark matter" and "dark energy", that we know absolutely nothing about. It's supposedly moving around us and through us all the time. How about evidence from epigenetics saying that everything in our environment having the ability to influence the expression of our genes on a day-to-day basis? Is this not enough to question the possibility? If not, why not?